The staggering growth of smart phones, tablets and other mobile devices is sending a massive flood of data through today’s mobile networks. Compared to just a few years ago, we are all producing and consuming far more videos, photos, multimedia and other digital content, and spending more time in immersive and interactive applications such as video and other games – all from handheld devices.

Think of mobile, and you think remote – using a handheld when you’re out and about. But according to the Cisco® VNI Mobile Forecast 2013, while 75% of all videos today are viewed on mobile devices by 2017, 46% of mobile video will be consumed indoors (at home, at the office, at the mall and elsewhere). With the widespread implementation of IEEE® 802.11 WiFi on mobile devices, much of that indoor video traffic will be routed through fixed broadband pipes.

Unlike residential indoor solutions, enterprise and public area access infrastructures – for outdoor connections – are much more diverse and complicated. For example, the current access layer architectures include Layer 2/3 wiring closet switches and WiFi access points, as shown below. Mobile service providers are currently seeking architectures that enable them to take advantage of both indoor enterprise and public area access infrastructure. These architectures must integrate seamlessly with existing mobile infrastructures and require no investment in additional access equipment by service providers in order for them to provide a consistent, quality experience for end users indoors and outdoors. For their part, mobile service providers must:

Offer indoor and outdoor access solutions

Put in place agreements and collaborate with traditional fixed broadband service providers to offload mobile traffic seamlessly

The following figure shows the three possible paths mobile service providers wanting to offer indoor enterprise/public can take. Approach 1 is ideal for enterprises trying to improve coverage in particular areas of a corporate campus. Approaches 2 and 3 not only provide uniform coverage across the campus but also support differentiating capabilities such as the allocation of application and mobility-centric radio spectrum across WiFi and cellular frequencies. A key factor to consider when evaluating these approaches is the extent to which equipment ownership is split between the enterprise and the mobile service provider. Approaches 2 & 3 increase capital expenditures for the operator because of the radio heads and small cells that need to be deployed across the enterprise or public campus. At AIS, LSI is demonstrating approach 2.

The last but certainly not least important consideration between approaches 2 and 3 is whether these indoor/outdoor small cells employ self-organizing network (SON) techniques. For service providers, the small cells ideally would be self-organizing and the macro cells serve any additional management functions. The advantage of approach 3 is that it offloads more of the macro cell traffic and makes various campus small cells self-organizing, significantly reducing operational costs for the service provider.